MEMO TO: City Manager FROM: Shane Pace, CIRP 5304 DATE: September 1, 2013 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Reviews – City of Benbrook, City of Keller Purpose: The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate the zoning ordinances of the City of Keller and the City of Benbrook respectively, in order to establish the contrasting elements between the two documents. Background: While the two zoning ordinances being reviewed have different organizational structures, the overall content of each is fairly consistent. The most substantive difference to be noted is that the City of Keller has adopted a Unified Development Code (UDC) in which their zoning ordinance is housed and the City of Benbrook has adopted a traditional stand-alone Zoning Ordinance. Upon further research it appears that the UDC has become a more widely used mechanism for the zoning ordinance in that it allows for more consistent requirements by having all codes within one document. The City of Keller UDC was adopted in 2008 and most recently amended on February 5, 2013. The City of Benbrook Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1998 with amendments as recent as 2012. Findings: With the limited scope of this memo, and the extensiveness of the individual ordinances being reviewed, the findings have been limited to specific key differences that are apparent upon an initial review.
•
Definitions: The Benbrook zoning ordinance begins with a comprehensive glossary of terms used throughout the ordinance. This list defines each of the terms within the ordinance that may be vague or open to interpretation. The City of Keller does not explicitly designate a section for definition of terms within the Zoning/Districts section of the UDC. Even though the UDC is supposed to serve as a single comprehensive document, the Zoning/Districts section is still available for download as an independent section leaving room for error and confusion.
•
Districts: It becomes obvious when comparing the two zoning ordinances that the cities maintain different sets of priorities. Keller holds design standards and community character as higher priorities. This explains the choice to utilize the UDC, which serves as a tool to help accomplish the vision for the city laid out in the comprehensive plan. Benbrook focuses on residential housing and commercial districts with less emphasis on specific design standards and community character.
o
1
Keller designates two specific districts that help make the community unique. The first is the Town Center (TC) District. This district lays out clear design standards with the inclusion of elevation drawings of building types; plan drawings of site areas, and cross-section renderings of street sections. They go on to illustrate street-scaping elements and lighting. Additionally, Keller designates another district to help preserve the character of the town with the Old Town Keller (OTK) District. The OTK District encourages infill development in the historic downtown with strict design standards to retain the historic feel and character of the area.
o Benbrook dedicates ten of its seventeen districts to housing with nine specifically targeted at single-family residential. Benbrook’s ordinance does not designate any specific districts as “Town Centers”, ”Old Town”, Downtown, or the like. This lack of designation indicates that no downtown area exists, nor is one included as a priority in the comprehensive plan. Benbrook does however designate an overlay district targeted at the nearby Naval Air Station, the (NAS) Overlay District. This shows the different priorities of each city, and what their planning focuses may be.
•
Parking: Keller places a stronger emphasis on parking regulations than Benbrook. Within the downtown area parking is required to be behind buildings with tenants sharing costs of remote parking as needed. Again, Keller provides detailed illustrations of parking locations, design, and general requirements within the UDC. Benbrook provides a comprehensive table of parking and vehicular circulation requirements by use, but does not provide detailed illustrations for specific districts. Benbrook does however designate standards for bicycle parking with detailed illustrations not found in the Zoning/Districts section of the Keller UDC. These differences further display Keller’s commitment to developing a sense of place within their community.
Conclusion: Analysis and comparison of each independent document displays that while each community shares similarities in the basics of their zoning ordinances, some distinct characteristics become apparent upon further review. Benbrook focuses on the basics of Euclidian zoning, providing for the general welfare of the community. Keller on the other hand takes this a step further and strives to direct the vision for the city through development standards within their Zoning/Districts section of the UDC. Each approach is equally effective in driving the development patterns and land use of the city. In this case it simply depends on the larger vision of the city to designate which is a more appropriate approach.
2